If you say so. A bit like Bill Gates saying in the early 80's "256K of memory should be enough for most people"Originally Posted by 1
If you say so. A bit like Bill Gates saying in the early 80's "256K of memory should be enough for most people"
Sure, except nothing like that at all.
Compare what yuo might have to work around with this camera (no fast wide lenses) to putting a DoF adapter on an HV30, or dealing with the codecs of DSLRs.
I'm sold on the Black Magic.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
You kids got lazy nowadays. If you don't have "fast" lenses, you just add light.
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
Not always possible and MUCH more expensive HW and production cost wise than just slapping a fast lens to deal with base exposures
I could not find your DOB and don't wish to be disrespectful to anyone but from what I've seen in the past 12 years, the vast majority of people under the age of 35 buying this gear are 'Trust Fund Babies' just looking for COOL WAY to spend their trust fund cash. Not all, but enough to create a market demographic all their own. Am I jealous. SURE! I crawled up from very humble gear in the early 70's and even now that I have the EARNED income to afford these toys, I refuse to pull the trigger. Only because my go to camera is a Flip Video Mino and HD and would likely have been an iPhone if they were cheap enough!
Seriously. 90% of the result is in production value elements that have nothing to do with image quality. But our national psychology is tuned into 'chasing cool'.
And the BMC is the ticket. Looks funky enough, vintage enough, mid century modern enough and high end enough to turn the chick's heads. Kinda like a Mini Cooper tricked out. BUT it can't replace the know how needed to turn RAW files into masterpieces. But who cares? By the time that anyone realizes that, the next cool toy will be out. BlackMagic read the demographic correctly. Trust Fund Babies are the big spenders of the New Millennium. But where are the results?
Well, they are 1 minute shorts on Vimeo, mostly of either night time motor cycle chases, couples frolicking in wheat fields or other junk.
So what's the value in that in the history of film making or in selling a product other than a camera or peripheral or how about documenting something fleeting or vanishing or exposing the extraordinary beauty of nature (minus the saccharine kitsch) ?
Last edited by zephyrnoid; 2012 April 20th at 12:49.
Zacuto shows off the BMCC attached to their rig: http://www.facebook.com/ZacutoUSA/po...50760553227402
Looks like a nice ear-ful of cables. (Hey, BlackMagic, here's a hint for the next revision: even a camera that only has a front and a back still needs a 'dumb' side and a 'smart' side!)
Although I sort of agree with you (especially in this early going, before the camera's been released and is still in acknowledged beta testing), as CMOS technology improves it seems the ease with which they can render smooth, life-like, non-plasticky skintones is increasingly what separates the great d-cine cams from the merely good ones. So it doesn't surprise me too much to see people obsessing about any little hint of trouble with skintones.
It's not really the lazy factor, it's the money factor.
Give me a great set of HMI's and no problem! Have you priced those things lately?
Daylight balanced flos are cheap, but always soft and not anywhere close to the output of an HMI.
Tungsten creates balancing problems, and digital cameras tend to like daylight balanced lights more than tungsten.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
That's why I've been fooling around with LED for the past 8 years. I can now get the effect of a 1K tungsten out of a certain LED head I modified, albeit with about the output of 50W (LED). The fast ISO's of the new sensors really do make LED's feesable and they are as close to 'natural' lighting as you can get without springing for HMI's.
I'm getting close to some interesting new fixtures too. But that's about a year out.
Pre-Order yours today!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ma_Camera.html
I beg to differ, they have a serious "dip" in the spectrum, making it hard to to proper color correction:
Film and video high-CRI LED lighting incompatibility
Phosphor-based LEDs
Edit:
A good video explaining this: http://www.oscars.org/video/watch/st...p_erland5.html
Especially about LEDs: http://www.oscars.org/video/watch/st...p_erland6.html
Last edited by Janke; 2012 May 4th at 03:25. Reason: more
Aye, me too. LEDs suck for high CRI lighting....and I make LED lights for sale.
(BTW, they also don't last 50000 hours or whatever they normally claim. Yeah, sure, the LED might still glow,
but at what brightness? If you can't keep the die cool enough, the things don't last very long at all.)
That said, they have their place, as long as they're understood correctly....and STOP USING "tungsten Wattage equivalent" light output as the main spec.
Gosh, I hate that! Just state how much wattage the thing uses, and we will figure out the rest ourselves!
200W LED Light for sale!!
(small print: wattage used: 14W)
OUCH!!
Tempting ;-)
Like you said, this is almost everything i wanted from Scarlet (i'd still have preferred a fixed lens, and 120 fps would be cool).... so, this might be my next camera. But nope, not going to preorder, i'm in no big hurry.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
I"m starting to look seriously at what it would take to handle the workflow. Why get this camera if you are NOT going to shoot Raw (although that is an option)?
You need a beefy computer, probably 12 gigs of ram, and a really good Nvidia GPU. I have a core i7 but it could probably use an updated GPU.
You need Adobe premiere or something like that to edit. Don't know if Final Cut X is gonna work well with CinemaDNG, and actually Adobe said Premiere doesn't work that well with CinemaDNG, but they are going to look into it. Yes, Adobe made CinemaDNG but didn't think anyone would be using it to edit. Black Magic caught them off guard.
If you don't have a Mac, looks like you need Mac Drive so your PC system will recognize the SSDs you will be recording on.
Plus I was looking at some of the calculations for storage. It ads up REALLY quickly if you start shooting Raw, like terabytes.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Well....I see several options for PC.
Importantly to note is that there ate TWO things to consider: 1) the SSD has to be first formatted in HFS+, and 2) this hard drive then has to be read/written to on a PC.
The formatting could be done by a friend with a mac. Then 2) could be done with HFSExplorer for free.
Alternatively, there's Paragon's HFS+ for Windows is less than half price from MacDrive.
So, three options:
- Macdrive, for U$50.00, to format and read/write HFS+ on Windows: http://www.mediafour.com/store/
- Paragon HFS+ for Windows for U$20.00, read/write HFS+ on Windows: http://www.paragon-software.com/home.../download.html
- Catacombae's HFSExplorer for FREE, to be able to READ and ACCESS files of the HFS+ SSD on Windows: http://www.catacombae.org/hfsx.html
Last edited by 1; 2012 May 4th at 20:53. Reason: corrected
Specific Tools for Specific Jobs. I think it's ludicrous to expect to edit uncompressed RAW from the get go. Create your proxies, find the right workflow that works with what you have.
At the end of the day, It all boils down to the same issue, regardless of equipment, what are you going to use the camera / gear for...
Obviously having such a wide dynamic latitude of footage allows you for more creative freedom while defining the look and overall aesthetics of your work, but ultimately, if you know what you're doing, you can get excellent results with a DSLR, h.264 and hdv.
Like It was said over and over in the thread, this camera might not be for everyone...
Best Regards
That's really not the issue. I already know I have no idea what I'm doing, and it's going to be crappy whether I shoot with an iphone or a Red Epic. That doesn't mean I don't want to shoot my crappy projects on a Red Epic. I do, and would if I had the budget. Would I shoot shaky footage of dogs and cats with a Red Epic if I could? Sure, why not? I would have fun doing it, and that's all that matters.
My concern is whether or not I have the funds to handle the entire work flow if I bought a Black Magic camera.
Similar to the Scarlet, it's not just having enough money for the camera. There's a lot of other things you need for the entire work flow compared to shooting HD.
My goal is to eventually shoot something as craptastic as Birdemic. I don't think I'll ever achieve that, but one can dream.
If I did pull it off, naturally I'd want it to be future proof.
Imagine shooting something this bad, Raw. That would be awesome!
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Agree to disagree. It's probably just me, but I would not shoot everything in 35mm, regardless of what I'm doing, just because I have it a film empire! :P (camera, film, a transfer company, edit and post-suite)
It's maybe my own personal background, like that time when Saddam use to fish with hand grenades...
My 1.5 cents!
Best Regards
I can't get hand grenades. As far as I know it's illegal to own them, at least in my State. But if I could get hand grenades you think I wouldn't go fishing with them? Are you kidding? Sunday afternoon with some cold beer and hand grenade fishing? Dude, I'm there!
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
just to re incite discussion, there's new footage of this camera. It's definitely worth checking it out.
http://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/201...magic-footage/
The footage looks pretty nice, but I honestly hate the camera's design. I'll personally stick with a dslr. Pretty much everything I do is for the web, so 1920x1080 is perfectly ok with me.
Last edited by FloydTheDuckFilms; 2012 August 8th at 02:25.
If it has been answered somewhere just point me....
but
What is a reasonable way of assessing the light output of LEDs?
I tend to think of 500W halogen work-lights as the cheap, very hot, but ample, lighting benchmark, and when I look at CFLs, LEDs etc I find it troubling to assess the equivalent light output (lumens, I guess) from alternate sources.
This is even before the debate about colour balance etc.
Yes, it is lumens, but you also have to keep in mind that the light falloff is bigger with CFL and LED lights than with Tungsten.
I have a 1000W "equivalent" CFL light, but I can can get the same f-stop at a greater distance out of my old, trusted 350W Arri. I know this comparison is a bit unfair, as the Arri is actually a fresnel light, however,...
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
I know that things will be a rough approximation, and you do need to experiment with the equipment in practice, but it seems pointless getting a "99 LED array" thinking it might be something eqiuvalent to the light output of a 100W tungsten globe, to find its more like a 40W globe.
And then bung it on Vimeo.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Check out